During the National Rifle Associations meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and the White House gun violence task force, the vice president said that the administration did not have the time to prosecute existing gun laws.

Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice presidents words to The Daily Caller: And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply dont have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.

Submitting false information on an ATF Form 4473  required for the necessary background check to obtain a firearm  is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison, depending on prior convictions and the judge, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” ~Ayn Rand

Nope. They just proved their position. They want to ban guns for everyone and don't care to bother with the finer points of enforcing the laws already on the books. If they did a better job enforcing laws, there would be less opportunities to blame guns for crimes.

Where did I hear, in Singapore if one is caught with illegal gun, one gets a life sentence, and if the gun is used in a crime, it is then a death sentence. That sounds harsh but could explain their very low crime rate.

14
posted on 01/17/2013 10:34:06 PM PST
by entropy12
(The republic is doomed when people figure out they can get free stuff by voting democrats)

Like background checks for security clearances? Like TSA employees’ background checks? Like someone checking to see if a guy running for president was a foreign citizen for the purposes of attending a US university?

If the GOP and the NRA...along with every single group on the supposed side of gun/2A rights does not flood the net and any other media with that very issue, then it will be abundantly clear to even the most willfully blind that they are not serious about it.

We just had a VP amid a battle for more gun laws say they do not try enforcing the current ones.

Hello America?

If they do not wrap this around the admin and gun grabber necks, and we continue to excuse them for their lack of action, regardless of what BS excuse they may come up with, we deserve whatever happens to us. Period.

Ummmm .... I thought that the PURPOSE of a background check is to ensure that the submitted information was correct and truthful. And now Clueless Joe is saying that they can’t get that process straight?

31
posted on 01/18/2013 6:57:37 AM PST
by NewJerseyJoe
(Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")

Submitting false information on an ATF Form 4473  required for the necessary background check to obtain a firearm  is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison, depending on prior convictions and the judge, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

So Joe is telegraphing that the administration has no plans to prosecute the ATF's number 2 man for doing just that? Figures.

If the ATF won't police it's own, and can't enforce the law on the rest of us, how does Joe expect to enforce his gun grab?

33
posted on 01/18/2013 7:09:22 AM PST
by Sirius Lee
(All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")

Submitting false information on an ATF Form 4473  required for the necessary background check to obtain a firearm  is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison, depending on prior convictions and the judge, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

So Joe is telegraphing that the administration has no plans to prosecute the ATF's number 2 man for doing just that? Figures.

If the ATF won't police it's own, and can't enforce the law on the rest of us, how does Joe expect to enforce his gun grab?

34
posted on 01/18/2013 7:09:41 AM PST
by Sirius Lee
(All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")

Having the pleasure to have visited Singapore several times, if its run, as you say by crony capitalist dictatorship, the dictators are doing lot of things right. As far as I know, they have free and honest elections.

Asking a S-Pore friend the difference between USA freedom and Singapore freedom, his response was “theirs was freedom from crime”. Aside from owning a gun or chewing gum, its hard to argue he's wrong.

As pretty, safe, friendly and clean as Singapore is, I'll still take the USA any day, or at least Texas.

35
posted on 01/18/2013 7:31:49 AM PST
by X-spurt
(Republic of Texas, Come and Take It!)

“Singapore is a unitary multiparty parliamentary republic with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government. The People’s Action Party has won every election since self-government in 1959, and governs on the basis of a strong state and prioritising collective welfare over individual rights such as freedom of speech.”

“Amnesty International has said that some legal provisions conflict with the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that Singapore has “possibly the highest execution rate in the world relative to its population”.[37] The government has disputed Amnesty’s claims.[38] In a 2008 survey, international business executives believed Singapore, along with Hong Kong, had the best judicial system in Asia.[39] In 2011, in the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index Singapore was ranked in the top countries surveyed in “Order and Security”, “Absence of Corruption”, and “Effective Criminal Justice”. However, it scored very low for both “Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Assembly”.[40] All public gatherings of five or more people require police permits, and protests may only be legally held at Speakers’ Corner.[41]”

“Lee Kuan Yew (born Harry Lee Kuan Yew, 16 September 1923[2]), GCMG, CH, is a Singaporean politician.[3][4][5][6] He was the first Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore, governing for three decades. He is also widely recognized as the founding father of modern Singapore.”

And fools like Ed Morrissey on Hot Air at the end of his opinion piece wrote: "Im not opposed to expanding background checks in principle, but whats the point if no one follows up on the bad actors they expose in the existing system?"

Obama's 23 Imperial Orders sounded so reasonable, don't you agree? To moderate Republicans/'conservatives', how can you not try to save the innocent children?

How does the Ed Morrissey'es of the world think expanding the current background check is agreeable in principle? Should any one else also go through a background check because they might possibly be in your house and thus have slight chance of access to your firearms? to what degree is reasonable to 'save the life of just one child' in Carney's words?

What if considerable numbers of people stopped paying income tax? Do you think the govt would have time to prosecute them? Or resources? :)

I firmly believe that if people don’t have the guts to organize for the purpose of reining in the govt by withdrawing the revenue, they don’t have the guts to organize to resist gun confiscation (at any speed, it is still pure confiscation). And without organizing, you’ll just get picked off one at a time.

38
posted on 01/18/2013 8:49:27 AM PST
by HomeAtLast
( You're either with the Tea Party, or you're with the EBT Party.)

What if considerable numbers of people stopped paying income tax? Do you think the govt would have time to prosecute them? Or resources?

Sounds good- but. The IRS and a host of other alphabet soup agencies were give virtual carte blanche by 'the Won' to go after tax evaders. Sure, they might let a few little fish go, but the IRS agents can and will come with law enforcement and make your (and anyone else's) life miserable. They come armed, they confiscate, they incarcerate.

Obamatron increased the numbers of agents. Bought them all lots of hollow point ammo, and are DARING you and anyone else to try. They WANT you to become a criminal so they can make an example of you.

But if enough people did it, with clear purpose and objectives...like the proverbial hordes walking in sync on a bridge can bring it down...then wouldn't the govt have to back down? Who'd pay the salaries of these people hired to come, confiscate, incarcerate, etc.? And who'd have the funds and manpower to deal with all the angry EBT party when they got all lathered up about a possible delay in the gravy train?

Besides, so many are saying they will take a stand like we haven't seen since the Alamo. Surely they have the backbone and steady fingers to snap their purses shut?

I hasten to add it isn't entirely about tax rebellion or "evasion." One can as well avoid income tax legally, simply by ceasing to work, and announcing that one is accepting the hardship for patriotic reasons. So far, the government can't force anyone to keep working.

40
posted on 01/18/2013 9:21:02 AM PST
by HomeAtLast
( You're either with the Tea Party, or you're with the EBT Party.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.